Setback For Bush Over Rights Bill

Key Senate Republican Vows To Oppose White House

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Danforth, who is marshaling President Bush`s Supreme Court nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas through the Senate, said Thursday he will take on the White House over civil rights legislation that Bush refuses to endorse.

The Missouri Republican said he will introduce a job discrimination bill next month with enough sponsors to be ``close to or at the number necessary to override a veto.``

Danforth tried in June to forge a compromise on the legislation but was rebuffed by White House staffers after it appeared an agreement had been reached. He took his case directly to Bush on July 25. But after receiving a letter Sunday from Bush in which the president refused to change his mind on a key provision, Danforth announced he will lead the floor fight on the issue.

``I believed we were all pulling in the same direction,`` Danforth said of wrangling since early last year over the standard for measuring

unintentional job discrimination. ``In retrospect, for the last year and a half I`ve been engaged in a rainbow-chasing operation.``

Danforth said his decision to challenge the president will have no impact on his role as lead spokesman for Thomas, the administration`s Supreme Court nominee, who has been meeting opposition from some black groups as well as from white liberals.

The House already has passed a Democratic version of the legislation, which is designed to reverse six 1989 Supreme Court rulings that curbed the reach of anti-discrimination laws. The bill also would allow women and minorities to collect money damages for intentional workplace discrimination. Congress approved a similar bill without the damages provision last year, but Bush vetoed it and an override attempt failed.

Conservative Republicans are sponsoring an alternate bill backed by the administration.

A major obstacle to compromise has been language relating to a 1971 Supreme Court ruling, Griggs vs. Duke Power Co., which said neutral hiring and promotion practices, such as exams, that disproportionately harm women or minorities are illegal unless they are justified as a ``business necessity.`` Both sides contend that their version would write the Griggs decision into law.

Danforth contends Bush`s definition of ``business necessity`` would allow employers to ``use a high school diploma or other educational qualifications as a screen even if those requirements are not related to the ability to do the job.``

``The difference is very narrow but very deep,`` he said.

In his letter, Bush said his proposal would not allow the unjustified use of educational requirements for menial jobs. On the other hand, he said other versions would ``seriously, if not fatally, undermine the reform and renewal of our educational system by discouraging employers from relying on educational effort and achievement.``

Until now, the administration has argued that the Democratic bill would set standards so rigid that employers would resort to hiring minorities and women by quota.

Danforth said the administration`s newest stand is ``wrongheaded`` and would cause ``a step backward`` for civil rights legislation. ``If we have to start prioritizing between educational policy and equal opportunity to get a job, it seems to me that`s a basic question of principle that must be resolved in favor of equal opportunity,`` he said.